Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 2013–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arkansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Zinger v. Stategreen2 sentences2015However, he undercuts this argument by asserting that the Zinger standard that the circuit court relied on was “too narrow.” In Zinger v. State, 313 Ark. 70 , 852 S.W.2d 320 , the supreme court held that the standard for admissibility of evidence tending to incriminate other persons in the crime being charged is as follows: A defendant may introduce evidence tending to show that someone other than the defendant committed the crime charged, but such evidence is inadmissible unless it points directly to the guilt of the third party. 2015However, he undercuts this argument by asserting that the Zinger standard that the circuit court relied on was “too narrow.” In Zinger v. State, 313 Ark. 70 , 852 S.W.2d 320 , the supreme court held that the standard for admissibility of evidence tending to incriminate other persons in the crime being charged is as follows: A defendant may introduce evidence tending to show that someone other than the defendant committed the crime charged, but such evidence is inadmissible unless it points directly to the guilt of the third party. | 2 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Holmes v. South Carolina
green
2 sentences2015This argument was inefficacious because the Zinger rule was expressly upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 , 126 S.Ct. 1727 , 164 L.Ed.2d 503 (2006). 2015This argument was inefficacious because the Zinger rule was expressly upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 , 126 S.Ct. 1727 , 164 L.Ed.2d 503 (2006). | 4 | 2013–2015 |
Cosen v. State
neutral
2 sentences2013Birts v. State, 2012 Ark. 348 , and Armstrong v. State, 373 Ark. 347 , 284 S.W.3d 1 (2008), were both decided after the United States Supreme Court case of Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006), and upheld the Zinger analysis. 7 Cite as 2013 Ark. 2013Birts v. State, 2012 Ark. 348 , and Armstrong v. State, 373 Ark. 347 , 284 S.W.3d 1 (2008), were both decided after the United States Supreme Court case of Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006), and upheld the Zinger analysis. 7 Cite as 2013 Ark. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Armstrong v. State
green
2 sentences2013Birts v. State, 2012 Ark. 348 , and Armstrong v. State, 373 Ark. 347 , 284 S.W.3d 1 (2008), were both decided after the United States Supreme Court case of Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006), and upheld the Zinger analysis. 7 Cite as 2013 Ark. 2013Birts v. State, 2012 Ark. 348 , and Armstrong v. State, 373 Ark. 347 , 284 S.W.3d 1 (2008), were both decided after the United States Supreme Court case of Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006), and upheld the Zinger analysis. 7 Cite as 2013 Ark. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Armstrong v. State
green
2 sentences2015I submit that Zinger is not the impediment to Dr. Conte prevailing on appeal, rather it is a case that purports to be Zinger’s progeny, Armstrong v. State, 366 Ark. 105 , 233 S.W.3d 627 (2006). 2015I submit that Zinger is not the impediment to Dr. Conte prevailing on appeal, rather it is a case that purports to be Zinger’s progeny, Armstrong v. State, 366 Ark. 105 , 233 S.W.3d 627 (2006). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Conte v. State
green
2 sentences2015Essentially, Dr. Conte’s appellate counsel was conceding that the circuit court’s ruling 37 Cite as 2015 Ark. 220 followed the binding precedent of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States. 2015Essentially, Dr. Conte’s appellate counsel was conceding that the circuit court’s ruling 37 Cite as 2015 Ark. 220 followed the binding precedent of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Harmon v. State
green
2 sentences2014Id. at 8. 10 Cite as 2014 Ark. 391 Here, Harmon’s testimony that he had loaned his car to another has no bearing on a determination of whether the DNA testimony was admissible under Zinger. 2014Id. at 8. 10 Cite as 2014 Ark. 391 Here, Harmon’s testimony that he had loaned his car to another has no bearing on a determination of whether the DNA testimony was admissible under Zinger. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Harrison
green
2 sentences2013We recently affirmed the Zinger test for admissibility of third-party exculpatory evidence in State v. Harrison, 2012 Ark. 198 . 2013We recently affirmed the Zinger test for admissibility of third-party exculpatory evidence in State v. Harrison, 2012 Ark. 198 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Atchley v. State
neutral
2 sentences2013This court later reconsidered the Zinger test and concluded that it complied with the requirement announced in Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 , 4 Cite as 2013 Ark. 2013This court later reconsidered the Zinger test and concluded that it complied with the requirement announced in Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 , 4 Cite as 2013 Ark. | 1 | 2013–2013 |